Is universal health care a moral issue?

[elizabeth]

Certainly a moral issue ,like starvation , war, rape, murder, abortion,the list is endless. The question is where people fall once they have decided it is a moral issue worthy of discussion.

[Catherine]

And if not, why not?

 

Is it because it's too important to leave the funding to chance? Well, some would argue that saving lives is as important as fighting wars. Morally, I don't think that's a difficult case to make.

[KidsHappen]

Well, the federal gov't has a Constitutional duty to provide for the common defense -- so funding a national military makes sense. I don't really see how that is socialist. And, you're right, many roads do receive at least some federal funds -- as I said these are mainy major interstate roads (at least where I live). I don't think taxes are taxes, though. At least where I live, if the library or local FD (not VFD, mind you, these are paid guys) need more funds there is an election where the voters vote on that specific issue: i.e. vote whether or not to assess an additional X cents [usually along the lines of a half-cent or so] on the water bill, for instance, with the money specifically going to the local dept in question. By law the money can't be diverted anywhere else. Everyone has the opportunity to decide on that particular issue. With this method there is more direct accountability between the voters and the local pols.

 

Cities too have a legal obligation to offer public safety services, so funding a police dept or fire dept makes sense. Strangely enough, in TX, counties are not legally obligated to provide EMS. The taxpayers in the county where I work have made it abundantly clear to the county commissioners that they want to fund a county EMS system. So, we continue to exist. I'm aware that there are, however, differing standards in different parts of the country for whether or not federal funds are used.

 

Maybe we're using different definitions of socialism. What is the definition you're using for socialism? Do you consider UHC a form of socialism? If not, what would you call it? And I'm not asking in a sarcastic tone, I promise. I'm trying to understand if you're pro-UHC and don't consider it socialist or if you're pro-UHC, consider it to be a form socialism (or have socialist tendancies), and you're fine with that.

 

Thank you. :)

Edited July 24, 2009 by KidsHappen

[BalanceSeeker]

To the OP,

 

I believe there is a moral obligation to care for those in need. This does not include UHC in my mind. I believe in HC reform and that there needs to be a larger safety net for the uninsurable, because in the case of major illness I do not want to see anyone lose everything they've worked for. I also believe the current system needs reform on many levels, the least of which is to address fraudulent denials for legitimate treatments.

 

The idea of personal responsibilty (which to me, is a privilege) being taken away from the citizens of the US is a major moral issue for me. I strongly believe one of the worst things you can do to someone is to "take care" of them to the point that they are handicapped and can't/won't help themselves. The current welfare programs are abysmal. I see the abuse every. single. day. I admit, I am embittered by those I see using and abusing the system and wasting MY tax dollars, but I am happy to see those in true need get the temporary help they need to get back on their feet.

 

My dh and I count it a privilege to help those in need. Truly, a privilege. However, the more and more we are taxed, the less we are able to do that, and that takes away something very meaningful to us.

Edited July 23, 2009 by BalanceSeeker

[brehon]

To the OP,

 

I believe there is a moral obligation to care for those in need. This does not include UHC in my mind. I believe in HC reform and that there needs to be a larger safety net for the uninsurable, because in the case of major illness I do not want to see anyone lose everything they've worked for. I also believe the current system needs reform on many levels, the least of which is to address fraudulent denials for legitimate treatments.

 

The idea of personal responsibilty (which to me, is a privilege) being taken away from the citizens of the US is a major moral issue for me. I strongly believe one of the worst things you can do to someone is to "take care" of them to the point that they are handicapped and can't/won't help themselves. The current welfare programs are abysmal. I see the abuse every. single. day. I admit, I am embittered by those I see using and abusing the system and wasting MY tax dollars, but I am happy to see those in true need get the temporary help they need to get back on their feet.

 

My dh and I count it a privilege to help those in need. Truly, a privilege. However, the more and more we are taxed, the less we are able to do that, and that takes away something very meaningful to us.

 

:iagree: 100%

[Impish]

To the OP,

 

I believe there is a moral obligation to care for those in need. This does not include UHC in my mind. I believe in HC reform and that there needs to be a larger safety net for the uninsurable, because in the case of major illness I do not want to see anyone lose everything they've worked for. I also believe the current system needs reform on many levels, the least of which is to address fraudulent denials for legitimate treatments.

 

The idea of personal responsibilty (which to me, is a privilege) being taken away from the citizens of the US is a major moral issue for me. I strongly believe one of the worst things you can do to someone is to "take care" of them to the point that they are handicapped and can't/won't help themselves. The current welfare programs are abysmal. I see the abuse every. single. day. I admit, I am embittered by those I see using and abusing the system and wasting MY tax dollars, but I am happy to see those in true need get the temporary help they need to get back on their feet.

 

My dh and I count it a privilege to help those in need. Truly, a privilege. However, the more and more we are taxed, the less we are able to do that, and that takes away something very meaningful to us.

As a Canadian, I can't say that having UHC takes anything away from my personal responsibility. The only handicap I have is RSD, which was directly from being at work, and assaulted while performing my duties.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Balance Seeker The idea of personal responsibilty (which to me, is a privilege) being taken away from the citizens of the US is a major moral issue for me. I strongly believe one of the worst things you can do to someone is to "take care" of them to the point that they are handicapped and can't/won't help themselves. The current welfare programs are abysmal. I see the abuse every. single. day. I admit, I am embittered by those I see using and abusing the system and wasting MY tax dollars, but I am happy to see those in true need get the temporary help they need to get back on their feet.

 

 

I strongly believe in personal responsibility as well. I also believe in being frugal, saving, working hard, and planning. It also drives me nuts to see people abuse the system or to pursue frivolous law suits. When I see people doing things like the these things, it makes me think of moral decay and the like.

 

However, I also believe in a social safety net such as welfare, food stamps, and universal healthcare. I think there should be reasonable incentives to encourage work with these programs so as not to create a dependent class. I think that not providing a social safety net because there are a few bad apples is like punishing the whole class for the actions of a few.

 

I also think that you can do everything right in terms of personal responsibility and still have a chronic or catastrophic illness take you down physically, financially, and spiritually.

 

Also, we are not all given the same deck of cards in life. There are probably many unfortunate people who were never encouraged to do well in school, work hard, save, and take care of themselves IMHO. I know that I have been very fortunate in my life and that many are not.:sad: So do we leave these people to their own defenses when the chips are down?

Edited July 24, 2009 by priscilla
spelling

[brehon]

Based on the definition of socialism, the public services of the military, roads, etc. are socialistic-like in that they publically funded and provided by the goverment for public benefit.

 

According to American Heritage Dictionary: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized gov't that often plans and controls the economy." None of the definitions I could find explicitly said anything about doing something for the public benefit.

 

The notion that this type of paradigm is in any way incompatible with or destructive to capitalism is misguided. Consider that, for example, that, for example, many goods considered by many to be best-of-breed are actually produced by thriving private-sector businesses in countries with long-standing traditions of a public health system, such as Germany's Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Porsche, Braun and others.

 

I agree with this to an extent. However, many of these companies are having their own problems with the German gov't right now in regards to raising taxes, the unique relationship between mgmt and labor, etc. I think you are partially correct -- socialism doesn't have to be automatically antagonistic to capitalism *as long as capitalism plays a subserviant role to gov't policy*.

 

In this dialogue, the words "socialism" and "communism" are cast in such a manner so as to attempt to invoke a notion of the Great Red Scare and McCarthyism of the 1950s IMHO, and is misplaced. I am not saying that individual posters are specifically doing this. I also believe that these loaded terms are the talking points of the private health insurance companies that are designed to invoke fear in the hearts of Americans. Frank Luntz is a lobbyist working with private health sector and and he has devised a very detailed, 28 page, talking points memo which very specifically outlines these tactics of trying to elicit fear through use of words like socialism, goverment take-over, and putting goverment between you and your doctor, delayed care is denied care, and many others. All of these are being heard nationally verbatum in a number of forums.

 

I actually agree with a lot of this. However, I would say that both sides are appealing to emotion and using various scare tactics in this "debate" (not necessarily on this board).

 

I am not suggesting that the goverment should pay for anything and everything, but be allowed to act within the mandate given in the Preamble of the US Constitution. The health of the American workforce is vital to maintaining our economic vitality, which absolutely extends to protecting and preserving private sector industry. Our nation's health is a matter of national security. It is detrimental to corporate productivity to have a workforce which might not be able to manage its health issues effectively. Many companies are suffering under the burden of onerous health insurance premiums and it detracts from the corporate bottom line.

 

[bolding mine] The preamble is not where the limits of power on the federal gov't are spelled out. Specifically, Article 10 states (paraphrasing) that those powers not given to the federal gov't are reserved for the States. A universal health care plan and/or universal health insurance plan does not fall into those powers specifically given to the federal gov't. The Constitution and, more specifically, the Bill of Rights were/are about limiting the power of the federal gov't. The only way the document was even ratified was because the Bill of Rights was eventually included.

 

I think it is morally imperative that America help the millions of un-insured and under-insured Americans. I think it more efficient to do universal healthcare at the federal level due to economies of scale.

 

I agree it is a moral imperative. I disagree that (a) the federal gov't -- which has no track record of running entitlement programs well or efficiently -- can run a UHC scheme and (b) that a UHC scheme should be mandatory on all Americans.

 

Lastly, I would ask yourself if they truly believe that their private health insurance plan will be just as good or just as affordable in 5 years or so. I know that my plans have been getting worse every year.:sad:

 

No, I don't. I don't think the current system is sustainable. I simply disagree that UHC will fix the massive and multitudinous problems with US health care.

 

Where do you live?;) Gee, where I live, the local powers to be just raise our taxes willy nilly:sad: For example, the school board autimatically raises our school tax the maximum they are allowed which is 6% and we don't get a say except for voting for the members of the school board. Locally where I live, we only get a say in our local representatives, not on the taxes themselves.

 

I live in TX. And I hear you on the ISD taxes -- I pay the highest property taxes for my local ISD in the state. :glare: I was referring specifically to the other city taxes used to fund public services (which thankfully, I don't yet have to pay as I don't live inside city limits).

[BalanceSeeker]

I strongly believe in personal responsibility as well. I also believe in being frugal, saving, working hard, and planning. It also drives me nuts to see people abuse the system or to pursue frivolous law suits. When I see people doing things like the these things, it makes me think of moral decay and the like.

 

However, I also believe in a social safety net such as welfare, food stamps, and universal healthcare. I think there should be reasonable incentives to encourage work with these programs so as not to create a dependent class. I think that not providing a social safety net because there are a few bad apples is like punishing the whole class for the actions of a few.

 

I also think that you can do everything right in terms of personal responsibility and still have a chronic or catastrophic illness take you down physically, financially, amd spiritually.

 

Also, we are not all given the same deck of cards in life. There are probably many unfortunate people who were never encouraged to do well in school, work hard, save, and take care of themselves IMHO. I know that I have been very fortunate in my life and that many are not.:sad: So do we leave these people to their own defenses when the chips are down?

 

You make my point. No, we don't leave these people to their own defenses when the chips are down - as I stated, I believe there should be a safety net so that NOBODY loses everything to cancer or the like. This includes closely monitoring and restructuring the welfare state and frivolous govt programs that are abused. The govt doesn't have to completely control an entire sector to protect the people.

 

I see UHC in the United States as a big problem in terms of accessibility, abuse of the system, cost containment, the size of the US, etc., etc.

 

I don't think the govt has to control 17% of our economy in order to provide the necessary safety nets desperately needed, which I have been hoping and praying for for a very long time. Take from Paul what is owed to Peter (Paul being the abuser of the welfare system driving the Escalade or what have you, and Peter being the one who is uninsurable and needs the govt to step in so they don't lose the shirt off their back).

 

ETA: I was watching an HGTV show last night about first time home ownership. They broke down this particular person's down payment, and in it they included a $30K (or was it $35K?) govt GRANT. I had to turn it off. These are the wastes I'm speaking of. When did the US Govt give people down payments to own a home? Is this part of the stimulus package?

Edited July 24, 2009 by BalanceSeeker

[LeeAnn Balbirona]

TracyR wrote: "If this happens it could take many , many months to see a specialist because they would be booked. It already takes us long enough to see some specialists but to have this happen at a grander scale..."

 

I don't get this as a reason to avoid UHC. It seems nearly immoral to me.

 

The reason the wait would be long would be because everyone who actually needs to see the specialist would now be able to, each waiting their turn. The only reason the wait is shorter now is because some people are excluded from being able to see the specialist for lack of funds. No one should be denied reasonable life-saving care, regardless of ability to pay.

 

If anything, the increased demand for specialist services should encourage physicians to go into in-demand specialties, and thus there should eventually be enough specialists to serve everyone in a timely manner.

[Colleen]

 

You know Colleen, I used to think you were abupt but I have come to realize that you are just succint. I like that. I am rarely confused by your posts.

I'm glad to hear it.:)

 

[CAMom]

I am very, very sorry about the loss of your daughter. I cannot imagine the pain. I do have to ask though - did you pay the $800,000 bill? What portion was covered by insurance and what portion were you left to pay? I do NOT think any parent should have to shoulder such a burden after losing a child. Most would be forced into bankruptcy with this type of bill. Again, I am terribly sorry for your loss.

 

Thank you for the sympathy regarding our loss. It's been close to five years now.

 

Our bills were paid in a variety of ways. A small percentage was paid by our insurance. We had friends who are in the public eye who made our need known and collected a very generous amount towards our expenses. We paid some (admittedly a tiny fraction of the $1 million dollars) from our own savings. The rest was covered by programs offered by the state of CA.

 

This was the case because our daughter's heart condition was on a list of conditions automatically receiving some coverage. That coupled with the fact that she spent her entire life in the hospital put her in a special category with California Children's Services.

 

Yes, we were very grateful for the portion of her expenses covered by the state. In spite of that, I am still not in favor of mandatory UHC or the increased taxes to pay for such a program.

[dangerdad]

So dangerdad, do you think that charities should fund our war in Afghanistan?

And if not, why not?

 

Is it because it's too important to leave the funding to chance? Well, some would argue that saving lives is as important as fighting wars. Morally, I don't think that's a difficult case to make.

 

I think a private army would do a better job in Afghanistan, hands down. Read Kill Bin Laden, by the Delta Force commander who went into Tora Bora to kill Bin Laden in Nov 2001, but was prevented from completing his tasks when higher-ups vetoed his strategy.

 

Funding by a source other than gov't isn't "leaving it to chance", it's "injecting politics into everything".

[My3Boys]

You may believe there can be a better system but why does it have to be paid for by those who earn more than $X per year?

 

Why should John Doe work hard his whole life to have the privilege of paying some total stranger's medical bills?

 

My point is that individual property is still that-personal property. What is next step? Now that I'm an empty nester and have paid off my mortgage does the government has the right to decide that my house is too big for my little family of 2? So they will seize my house that a lifetime of work has paid for and reassign me to a smaller home adequate to my "needs" and give my "big" home to a larger family. Taking my cash is no different than taking my house, my car or my TV set. It is still my property.

 

Take the education system. Theoretically that is universal. Yet there are constant complaints that schools are better in wealthier districts because they are able to raise more taxes. If in all the years we've had publicly funded education no one has been able to fix that problem, what do you think the chances are that UHC has a shot?

 

The health and insurance system may be broken but the principles behind this fix are certainly un-American. While you may feel that the wealthier have a moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate that doesn't equal a need for federally legislated theft.

 

:iagree: Amen and great post!

[My3Boys]

I don't understand how taxes are stealing. And it would seem to me that insurance companies far more fit the thief role than would taxation. Insurance companies promise so much, yet deny claims constantly, seemingly based on a numbers strategy. You may *think* you have good insurance, until something horrible happens. Such is the way with insurance companies, at least in what I've witnessed. A child needing surgery wasn't covered for a friend of mine, so she had to resort to public pleading and fundraising to cover the payment the hospital wanted. This was for life saving surgery. Cancer victims find the same thing. Theft seems far more the case with private insurance companies than with the Canadian health care system.

 

Are all taxes stealing? Or only for things you disagree with? I mean, I pay taxes for public schools, and none of my children attend. Should I call that stealing?

 

I think the big difference in this debate is that it seems folks who've never been touched with serious medical issues are comfortable being against UHC, whereas those who have experienced the devastation huge hospital bills can wreak are for it. Its easy to say that folks should always have insurance when you've never been in the situation where it was impossible. Its easy to believe that insurance will cover what you need...until it doesn't.

 

No parent with a seriously ill child should have to worry about financial ruin as well.

 

 

The flaw in this comparison is that taxes are forcibly taken from me. With private insurance, I have a choice whether or not to purchase it and abide by their decision. At least with private insurance, I have the option of paying for the refused treatment/surgery myself. With the government plan, if they turn me down for a needed procedure, I will not be allowed to do so.

[My3Boys]

I think that it is fear mongering to call UHC marxism. Is our dear military, roads, libraries, police and fire-fighters marxist? I don't think so at all. In my book that sort of argument does not hold water at all.

 

UHC is redistribution of income. Paying salaries to police, military, is not. Totally different situations.

[usetoschool]

As I read through all of the new additions to this thread something struck me. I have a right to defend myself, therefore, I can hire someone to perform that job for me. I can hire the military to defend my country. I do not have the right to take money from my neighbor to pay for my medical bills, therefore, I do not have the right to hire someone (senators) to do that for me. Healthcare is not a right. If a community comes together and decides that all of them want to pool their money and help someone in that community, they are entitled to make that choice with their own money. That is how charity works. Taxes are not stealing, per se, but when you are taxed for something that your neighbor does not have a right to take money from you to pay for, then it is "stealing", although there is probably a better word to describe what is going on.

 

Government programs like this take away freedom of choice, the ability to help and associate with the people that we choose, to do with our money and property what we choose. It is saying that people are too selfish or ignorant to manage their own lives and they must hire someone else to do it for them. The government are people that we hire to do a job for us. This all hangs on the idea that people will overall and in the long run choose what is best for themselves and the community as a whole. There are always selfish people, but my experience has been that people as a whole act in the best interest of their community and themselves in a charitable and helpful way. When that is no longer the case, we are in bigger trouble than healthcare funding problems I think.

[KingM]

If a community comes together and decides that all of them want to pool their money and help someone in that community, they are entitled to make that choice with their own money. That is how charity works. Taxes are not stealing, per se, but when you are taxed for something that your neighbor does not have a right to take money from you to pay for, then it is "stealing", although there is probably a better word to describe what is going on.

 

What if the community votes to tax as a way of pooling their money to pay for health care? Or, in our system, the legally elected representatives vote to provide this service?

[Peek a Boo]

I think that it is fear mongering to call UHC marxism. Is our dear military, roads, libraries, police and fire-fighters marxist? I don't think so at all. In my book that sort of argument does not hold water at all.

 

fear mongering only works when there's an element of truth to it.

 

and no --our military, roads, et al. are not *marxist* -- they are socialist.

But i pursued that answer in a previous thread. :D

 

moving on:

 

yes, i think it's a moral issue.

yes, i think all taxes are stealing --we simply decide to put up with the theft [and many don't and try tax evasion. some succeed, some are prosecuted].

 

I would prefer a [truly] capitalistic form of gvt.

 

The biggest problems w/ our insurance now isn't just the insurance companies, but the gvt policies forced UPON the insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals. Malpractice insurance is at ridiculous levels. Tort reform is needed.

 

I would support the gvt offering a completely separate, voluntary healthcare insurance program. Those that believe it is necessary to have that kind of system can subsidize it.

If indeed most of America wants it, they should have no problem funding it voluntarily. And if indeed it proves to be so much better than what we have now, people will voluntarily flock to it.

And the gvt should back OUT of the heinous and weighty policies and limitations and requirements they have put on the current healthcare industry and limit it to their own plan.

[Peek a Boo]

What if the community votes to tax as a way of pooling their money to pay for health care? Or, in our system, the legally elected representatives vote to provide this service?

 

Then citizens should have the right to opt out of both the benefits and responsibilities.

[usetoschool]

What if the community votes to tax as a way of pooling their money to pay for health care? Or, in our system, the legally elected representatives vote to provide this service?

 

Then everyone, ev er y one, has to agree to contribute, and anyone not interested in the plan has to have the ability to opt out.

[KingM]

Then everyone, ev er y one, has to agree to contribute, and anyone not interested in the plan has to have the ability to opt out.

 

Unfortunately, that's just not the way representative democracy works.

[Peek a Boo]

Unfortunately, that's just not the way representative democracy works.

 

look! I agree w/ KingM! :D

[usetoschool]

Unfortunately, that's just not the way representative democracy works.

 

A democracy is just mob rule by a more polite name. We live in a representative republic. And, in its true form, it does work that way. What we currently have, and the path we have been on for quite a few years, is socialism lite, in my opinion.

 

Nonetheless, I still do not have the right to force someone to pay my medical bills. Just because 51% of people agree to it still doesn't make it right.

[KingM]

A democracy is just mob rule by a more polite name.

 

Well, as Winston Churchill said...

 

:)

[Spy Car]

Nonetheless, I still do not have the right to force someone to pay my medical bills. Just because 51% of people agree to it still doesn't make it right.

 

But isn't that the condition that "opting out" of an insurance scheme would create? If one had a medical catastrophe that was beyond ones means to pay then a state, hospital, charity, or other entity would be left holding the bill.

 

The alternative is to not provide emergency care to those who have "opted out" and potentially letting people die, and creating widows and orphans in the process. This doesn't seem like a morally acceptable option.

 

Bill

Edited July 28, 2009 by Spy Car

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Spy Car But isn't that condition that "opting out" of an insurance scheme would create? If one had a medical catastrophe that was beyond ones means to pay then a state, hospital, charity, or other entity would be left holding the bill.

 

The alternative is to not provide emergency care to those who have "opted out" and potentially letting people die, and creating widows and orphans in the process. This doesn't seem like a morally acceptable option.

 

Bill

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Well said:).

[Aubrey]

But isn't that condition that "opting out" of an insurance scheme would create? If one had a medical catastrophe that was beyond ones means to pay then a state, hospital, charity, or other entity would be left holding the bill.

 

The alternative is to not provide emergency care to those who have "opted out" and potentially letting people die, and creating widows and orphans in the process. This doesn't seem like a morally acceptable option.

 

Bill

 

This is exactly the reason I"m not sure how I feel about the whole thing. Maybe one guy shouldn't be forced to pay another's medical bills, but neither of them should be forced to watch the other die, either. Saving people from dying in the streets *is* a moral issue--it's more about saving ourselves from the kind of depravity that would allow that than it is from saving the sick individuals.

 

Ultimately, I think people who are against UHC (& I'm not completely sure where I stand on this, other than I think health *ins* is rotten) do NOT believe that people will be dying in the streets w/out it. But I figure we've either got UHC legally, we've got it under the table, where rates are hiked on the insured so that the uninsureds' bills are covered, or we do have people dying in the streets.

 

And so I wonder, since it seems obvious that we don't have the stomach to turn people away at the ER doors, if it wouldn't be more equitable to write out a plan for UHC. Right now, I guess it's like a hole in the budget, where we say, I'm going to stop getting S'bux on the way to work every day, because it costs too much. But we still do it. We fool ourselves by scrounging cash from under the seats of the car or by using a cc instead of the bank acct, but we still do it.

 

So what if we make an envelope for it, & *plan* to need coffee $ every morning. I mean, aside from the fact that it may not be in the budget. Because we're doing it anyway--maybe if we'd be honest about that, we could write a more accurate budget. Get a 2nd job or quit wasting $ at the grocery store on Folgers.

 

My point is just that we should be more honest w/ ourselves about the current state of things. We're not currently w/out UHC; we're currently w/out a plan for funding it.

[mrsrevmeg]

Our tax money has paid for my sister to sit on her tail, doing nothing and have a baby. Our taxes are no paying for said baby's formula, etc... through the form of WIC. Even though her father has a job and COULD be providing insurance, she is being taken care of through Medicaid. Our taxes are paying for a woman in my church to quit her job so she can get Medicaid to pay for psychiatric care for herself. This is why I am against UHC. We have a flawed system that encourages people to not work things because "If I have a job, I'll make too much money to qualify for government services like Food Stamps and Medicaid."

[aly9712]

I believe that it is indeed a moral issue. I believe that it is our responsibility as human beings to ensure that all children, elderly, disabled and those who are unable to afford care- have access. It is something that should be mandated just like education....whether you decide to use the system or not is your business, but there should be an option. Letting people die from preventable and treatable illnesses for financial reasons is unacceptable.

[BalanceSeeker]

Our tax money has paid for my sister to sit on her tail, doing nothing and have a baby. Our taxes are no paying for said baby's formula, etc... through the form of WIC. Even though her father has a job and COULD be providing insurance, she is being taken care of through Medicaid. Our taxes are paying for a woman in my church to quit her job so she can get Medicaid to pay for psychiatric care for herself. This is why I am against UHC. We have a flawed system that encourages people to not work things because "If I have a job, I'll make too much money to qualify for government services like Food Stamps and Medicaid."

 

Yep. This is the reason I'm against UHC. Until we can rid the system of the fraud and the wasteful spending, we can't afford it, period. Our govt is comprised of a bunch of wasteful spenders. We shouldn't allow them to add another system under their control until they prove they can live within a budget and cut unnecessary spending. Just like in our own households.

[EKS]

Yes, it is a moral issue.

 

I find it interesting that conservative folks, in general, seem very interested in everyone's private morality but are generally against doing things for the "greater good", while liberals, in general, seem to be just the opposite.

[BalanceSeeker]

Yes, it is a moral issue.

 

I find it interesting that conservative folks, in general, seem very interested in everyone's private morality but are generally against doing things for the "greater good", while liberals, in general, seem to be just the opposite.

 

Along with it, (as a conservative), I think we've thrown personal responsibility out the window, and that is wrong. Everyone should be contributing to the society, even if all they can give is time.

[dangerdad]

Yes, it is a moral issue.

 

I find it interesting that conservative folks, in general, seem very interested in everyone's private morality but are generally against doing things for the "greater good", while liberals, in general, seem to be just the opposite.

 

Uh, conservatives generally are interested in what private morality is codified in law. I don't see many people on the right trying to tell you what you can do in your own house. That's consistent with personal liberty.

[EKS]

Along with it, (as a conservative), I think we've thrown personal responsibility out the window, and that is wrong. Everyone should be contributing to the society, even if all they can give is time.

 

:iagree: And I'm not even a conservative.

[EKS]

Uh, conservatives generally are interested in what private morality is codified in law. I don't see many people on the right trying to tell you what you can do in your own house. That's consistent with personal liberty.

 

Right--that's what I'm talking about. Private morality codified in law. If it doesn't affect anyone else, why have laws about it?

[dangerdad]

Right--that's what I'm talking about. Private morality codified in law. If it doesn't affect anyone else, why have laws about it?

 

You misunderstand what I was saying. It's people trying to codify aberrant behavior into law that social conservatives oppose. It's one thing to say "you folks do what you want on your own time", it's another thing to say, "Oh and we'll recognize that marginal behavior as normal." (See Prop 8 here in CA.)

 

You'd think that champions of personal liberty (on either side of the aisle) would be opposed to a massive gov't bureaucracy telling you what doctor you're allowed, or what procedure is approved.

[Lovedtodeath]

With the government plan, if they turn me down for a needed procedure, I will not be allowed to do so.

Seriously? I always heard that in other countries you still had the option to pay for the healthcare that you want.

 

We have a flawed system that encourages people to not work things because "If I have a job, I'll make too much money to qualify for government services like Food Stamps and Medicaid."

:iagree:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I live in Canada, and absolutely believe that it is morally the right thing to do. The idea that someone cannot afford the healthcare they need is terrible to me. That someone can go bankrupt because of hospital bills is repugnant to me.

 

I truly believe that adequate health care is a right. And it shouldn't come with fears of financial ruin. It shouldn't be based on income. Every citizen should be able to access the help they need, when they need it, without fear.

 

That's my take, anyways.

 

When you say every citizen, do you mean each Canadian, or would you also agree that it is a moral imperative to tax richer countries to provide health care to those in other countries?

 

Would your answer change if you disagreed with some of the proceedures offered?

[Peek a Boo]

But isn't that the condition that "opting out" of an insurance scheme would create? If one had a medical catastrophe that was beyond ones means to pay then a state, hospital, charity, or other entity would be left holding the bill.

 

The alternative is to not provide emergency care to those who have "opted out" and potentially letting people die, and creating widows and orphans in the process. This doesn't seem like a morally acceptable option.

 

Bill

 

nope.

you forget that there are other options --it's not a cut n dried issue :)

 

people who aren't part of the gvt system could rely on regular health insurance they purchased themselves [that the gvt would NO LONGER be brow-beating to death] or the numerous charities that would still be available to help those who opt out of the gvt program.

 

Cuz if the gvt program is all that and a bag of chips, then those charities will be FREED UP to help others that want little to do w/ gvt-run anything.

 

It is morally acceptable to give people an option. It is not morally acceptable to force people onto a program that takes their money by force.

 

I find it interesting that conservative folks, in general, seem very interested in everyone's private morality but are generally against doing things for the "greater good", while liberals, in general, seem to be just the opposite.

 

this is false.

 

Conservatives have a track record of giving MORE of their own money to charitable organizations "for the greater good" than liberals do.

Liberals are reknown for confiscating more of other people's money "for the greater good."

This mindset is driven home by Spyar's response above re: "but what will happen to all the others?" --it is wrongly assumed that nobody will give voluntarily.

[Peek a Boo]

Right--that's what I'm talking about. Private morality codified in law. If it doesn't affect anyone else, why have laws about it?

 

you'd have to define "doesn't affect anyone else."

issues like abortion directly affect another human.

Teens are too young to be legally having sex, so free access to birth control could be contributing to statutory rape.

 

I'm not that passionate about laws re: gay/lesbian issues.

[Peek a Boo]

....whether you decide to use the system or not is your business, but there should be an option. Letting people die from preventable and treatable illnesses for financial reasons is unacceptable.

 

except that the current bill does not give you an option on some points. end of life discussions are *mandated.* and i haven't even read through all of it to see what else is mandated......

[PineFarmMom]

My view is, universal health care is not a function of our gov't, and it does not make me an immoral person for thinking that.

 

You're correct. It's not a moral issue, nor is it a right. I'd like to see everyone in the world have their health needs taken care of, but not by a dysfunctional govt.

[Peek a Boo]

Along with it, (as a conservative), I think we've thrown personal responsibility out the window, and that is wrong. Everyone should be contributing to the society, even if all they can give is time.

 

I agree, but that has to remain voluntary or you lose the entire concept of personal liberty.

[Peek a Boo]

But isn't that the condition that "opting out" of an insurance scheme would create? If one had a medical catastrophe that was beyond ones means to pay then a state, hospital, charity, or other entity would be left holding the bill.

 

The alternative is to not provide emergency care to those who have "opted out" and potentially letting people die, and creating widows and orphans in the process. This doesn't seem like a morally acceptable option.

 

Bill

 

Q to clarify: are you assuming the hospitals and doctors and clinics would be owned and run by the gvt??